Terrence. A comparison of damage functions for use in artillery effectiveness codes

76 Pages·1.561 MB·English

by  Klopcic J.

FILE COpy
L-%M
MEMORANDUM REPORT BRL-MR-3823
F3RL
00
N
N
N A COMPARISON OF DAMAGE FUNCTIONS FOR USE
IN ARTILLERY EFFECTIVENESS CODES
D T
C
J. TERRENCE KLOPCIC
JUN 121990
APRIL 1990
AROVED FOR PMBLIC REnLEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLNY'D.
U.S. ARMY LABORATORY COMMAND
BALLISTIC RESEARCH LABORATORY
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLAND
Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. DO NOT return it to e originator.
Additional copies of this report may be obtained from the National Technical Information Service,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
The findings of this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position,
unless so designated by other authorized documents.
The use of trade names or manufacturers' names in this report does not constitute indorsement of
any commercial product.
Fi Fl
NQASTnUNCLASI ________
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
M @7AOf
fa0 u pow"0 W fotri ge~ O i~OWto" 90118=~4S4O.WOtEO #w g 'offm O~eO . the tiate for on"g.wi~~Wioegu
Va.3 -tot= w aAIqf~o~t WotOa1Oiofie,m-aMe lf ..tW.or' 6oiWa tg, 'oo .r ut otosiP wet SS4U.W bmm to
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (LeV* 6W*n) 2. REPORT DATE I. REPORT TPE AND DATES COVRED
I Ap9i9l0 Final, Sept 89-Jan 90
A Comparison of Damage Functions for Use in Artillery 11162618A1180
Effectiveness Codes DA31 6061
G.AUTNOR(S)
J. TERRENCE KLOPCIC
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADORESS(ES) B. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER
9. SPONSORING/IMONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADRESIES) 10. SPONSORING'MONI'TORING
Ballistic Research Laboratory AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
ATTN: SLCBR-DD-TBR--32
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5066 R--82
11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
128a. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE
Distribution is Unlimited.
13. ABSTRACT (Max imum 200 words)
This report has three sections. The first section presents a comparison of results
from the Carleton and Cookie Cutter functions, including both a mathematical proof
and numerical demonstration of their relationships. The second section defines and
develops the hybrid (Klopcic) function. Finally, the third section presents some
numerical examples of simulations wihich demonstrate failures of the Carleton/CC
functions and compares the behavior of the Klopcic function.
14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES
Vulnerability Tank 66
Fault-Free 16. PRICE CODE
Methodology
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION I 1B. SECURITY CLASSIFIATION I 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. UITATION OF ABSTRACT
OF REPORT Of THIS PAGE Of ABSTRACT
UNCLASSIFIED jUNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED SAR
NIN 754041I205SSO Standard For?" 299 (Rev 2-89)
01U~.Wo &14 14
L-TEN'oNAL.LY LEFT BLANK.
Contents
I. Introduction 1
A. Background ....... ............................ 1
B. Scope ....... ............................... 1
II. Comparison of Carleton and Cookie Cutter Results 3
A. Single Aimpoint on Target .......................... 3
B. Single Aimpoint off Target .......................... 9
III. The Hybrid (Klopcic) Function 22
A. Function Definition .............................. 22
B. Single Aimpoint off Target ......................... 25
C. Summary of Characteristics ..... ................... 35
IV. Summary 36
V. Acknowledgements 38
Appendix A 39
Appendix B G -A5
DISTRIBUTION LIST Acoession For 61
NTIS GRA&I w7
DTIC TAB "
Unannounced 5
Justification
By
Distribution/
Availability Codes
\ Iii' po Is al
This page intentionally left blank
iv
List of Figures
1 The Carleton and Cookie Cutter Functions ............... 2
2 Mapping of Pk(Cookie Cutter) onto Pk(Other) ........... 7
3 Comparison of CC and Carleton Results for Aimpoint Bias = 0 12
4 Comparison of CC and Carleton Results for Aimpoint Bias = 2 13
5 Comparison of CC and Carleton Results for Aimpoint Bias = 4 14
6 Comparison of CC and Carleton Results for Aimpoint Bias = 7 15
7 Comparison of CC and Carleton Results for Aimpoint Bias = 10 16
8 Comparison of CC and Carleton Results for Aimpoint Bias = 15 17
9 Comparison of CC and Carleton Results for Aimpoint Bias = 20 18
10 Comparison of CC and Carleton Results for Aimpoint Bias = 35 19
11 Comparison of CC and Carleton Results for Aimpoint Bias = 50 20
12 The Klopcic Function ............................ 24
13 Klopcic, CC and Carleton Results for Aimpoint Bias = 0 . . 26
14 Klopcic, CC and Carleton Results for Aimpoint Bias = 2 . . 27
15 Klopcic, CC and Carleton Results for Aimpoint Bias = 4 . . 28
16 Klopcic, CC and Carleton Results for Aimpoint Bias = 7 . . 29
17 Klopcic, CC and Carleton Results for Aimpoint Bias = 10 30
18 Klopcic, CC and Carleton Results for Aimpoint Bias = 15 31
19 Klopc.c, CC and Carleton Results for Aimpoint Bias = 20 32
20 Klopcic, CC and Carleton Results for Aimpoint Bias = 35 33
21 Klopcic, CC and Carleton Results for Aimpoint Bias = 50 34
B-i Opening Screen/Main Menu ...... ................. 46
V
B-2 Review Data Menu ........................ 47
B-3 Data for Sample Run ............................ 48
B-4 Data for Sample Run, continued ..................... 49
B-5 Deployment Graphic ...... ....................... 50
B-6 Edit Menu ....... ............................. 51
B-7 Typical Lower Level Menus (Firing Unit and Aimpoint). ... 52
B-8 Damage Probability for Target #1 .... ............... 53
B-9 Damage Probability, Rescaled, with Column 1 Removed . . . 54
B-!O Probability of Some Damage ........................ 55
B-11 Cumulative Damage Probability Plot .................. 56
B-12 Cumulative Damage Probability Table ................ 57
vi
List of Tables
1 Numerical simulation of Pk(CC) / Pk(K) .. .. .. .. .. .... 10
2 Damage Function Parameters. .. .. .. .. ... ... ..... 11
A-I Input parameters for the Klopcic function .. .. .. .. ..... 40
vii
This page intentionally left blank
viii